This site uses cookies to store information on your computer, to improve your experience. One of the cookies this site uses is essential for parts of the site to operate and has already been set. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but parts of the site will not work. To find out more about the cookies this site uses and how to delete them, please see the privacy notice.

The DfE has released data on the performance of multi-academy trusts in England for the academic year of 2016/17. You can read the full release here.

This release presents performance measures for multi-academy trusts (MATs) (those with at least three schools, with results in the academic year 2016-17 and who have been with the MAT for at least three years). The MAT performance measures mirror those in the school performance tables. The primary progress measures and Progress 8 are relative measures that compare the performance of pupils in each school, MAT or sponsor to other pupils with similar prior attainment. The national average (for state-funded mainstream schools) is close to zero, so a score close to zero means pupils at the school or MAT do about as well as other pupils nationally with similar starting points.

Key stage two

The proportion of MATs with progress at or above average was 41 per cent in reading, 59 per cent in writing and 51 per cent in maths

The number of MATs included in the key stage two measures has increased by more than 50 per cent (from 95 in 2016 to 153 in 2017)

When looking at the progress scores for disadvantaged pupils only, the proportion of MATs with progress scores at or above the national average for state-funded mainstream schools is lower than for the progress scores for all pupils

In maths, 49 per cent of MATs have progress scores at or above average; while in writing and reading, the proportions are 61 per cent and 51 per cent respectively

Reading progress measure

26 (17.0 per cent) are currently performing above average - last year, the figure was 21 (22.1 per cent)

three (2.0 per cent) are performing in line with the national average - last year, the figure was six (6.3 per cent)

40 (26.1 per cent) are performing below average - last year, the figure was 22 (23.2 per cent)

Writing progress measure

50 (32.7 per cent) are currently performing above average - last year, the figure was 21 (22.1 per cent)

three (2.0 per cent) are performing in line with the national average - last year, the figure was six (6.3 per cent)

18 (11.8 per cent) are performing below average - last year, the figure was 22 (23.2 per cent)

Maths progress measure

29 (19.0 per cent) are currently performing above average - last year, the figure was 21 (22.1 per cent)

three (2.0 per cent) are performing in line with the national average - last year, the figure was six (6.3 per cent)

29 (19.0 per cent) are performing below average - last year, the figure was 22 (23.2 per cent)

EAL pupils

In the reading progress measure, performance is generally slightly better in MATs with a lower proportion of EAL pupils. In 2017, 14 MATs with a higher proportion of EAL pupils perform significantly above average compared with 18 MATs with a lower proportion of EAL pupils. There were 28 MATs with a higher proportion of EAL pupils performing significantly below average; while 23 MATs with a lower proportion of EAL pupils performed significantly below average

SEND pupils

In the reading progress measure, fewer MATs with a higher proportion of SEN pupils achieve scores above the national average (13 MATs) than those with a lower proportion of SEN pupils (17 MATs)

In the writing progress measure, fewer MATs with a higher proportion of SEN pupils performed significantly above the national average (12 MATs) compared with those with a lower proportion of SEN pupils (20 MATs)

In the maths progress measure, fewer MATs with a higher proportion of SEN pupils performed significantly above the national average (19 MATs) compared with those performing significantly above average with a lower proportion of SEN pupils (22 MATs)

Key stage four

The number of MATs with Progress 8 scores below average is lower than 2016 (when around two-thirds of MATs had below average progress)

However, the number of MATs included in the key stage four measures has increased by 32 per cent (from 47 in 2016 to 62 in 2017)

In 2017, 45 per cent of MATs performed significantly below average. This compares with 37 per cent of MATs performing significantly below average for disadvantaged pupils

In 2017, 33.9 per cent and 32.3 per cent of MATs have EBacc entry above the national average for all pupils and for disadvantaged pupils respectively

EBacc attainment for all pupils showed 24.2 per cent of MATs had achieved above the national average at grades 5/C or above for state-funded mainstream schools. There was 25.8 per cent of MATs with 'EBacc attainment at grades 5/C or above' above the national average for disadvantaged pupils in state-funded mainstream schools

In 2017, there were 26 MATs (41.9 per cent) performing statistically significantly above the national average for disadvantaged pupils in state-funded mainstream schools. There were 23 MATs (37.1 per cent) performing significantly below average for disadvantaged pupils and 13 MATs (21.0 per cent) performing close to the national average for disadvantaged pupils

SEN pupils

In 2017, 10 MATs with higher percentages of SEN pupils are performing statistically significantly above average compared with seven for MATs with a lower proportion of SEN pupils. There are 12 MATs with relatively high proportions of SEN pupils that are performing statistically significantly below average

EAL pupils

12 MATs with higher percentages of EAL pupils are performing statistically significantly above average compared with seven for MATs with a lower proportion of EAL pupils. There are 11 MATs with relatively high proportions of EAL pupils that are performing statistically significantly below average.